> > coupled closely to provide integrated sensory
> > cues 6 These systems shall respond to abrupt
> > pitch, roll and yaw inputs at the pilot's position
> > within 150/300 milliseconds of the time, but not
> > before the time, when the airplane would respond
> > under the same conditions. [...]"
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Martin Spott
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 5:01 PM
> To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> "Bill Galbraith" wrote
Maik,
These are not "dogfight-only" problems. These are multiplayer problems
which currently are not addressed well in the current multiplayer
implementation. On the public servers with high latency, multiplayer
flight can be choppy as a plane in your view "magically" disappears from
your ri
Well, once again I am working on a new newsletter for JSBSim. I've taken a
sort of rest from that, as I am also producing another newsletter (see:
www.aiaa-houston.org/horizons). If anyone has any suggestions on topics I am
all ears. Better yet, if anyone can contribute, that's really very _much_
a
Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
> Vivian Meazza wrote:
>
>
>> Harald
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sent: 13 May 2007 18:19
>>> To: FlightGear developers discussions
>>> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
>>>
>>>
>>> Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Hi Bill,
"Bill Galbraith" wrote:
> "Relative responses of the motion system,
> visual system, and cockpit instruments shall be
> coupled closely to provide integrated sensory
> cues 6 These systems shall respond to abrupt
> pitch, roll and yaw inputs at the pilot's position
> within 150/300 milli
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Martin Spott
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 4:17 PM
> To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
>
> Maik Justus wrote:
>
> > Does anyon
Hi Ampere,
yes,
but solving this dogfight-only problem by bringing in a general problem
for every flightgear user is much worse.
Maik
Ampere K. Hardraade schrieb am 13.05.2007 21:25:
> On Sunday 13 May 2007 15:05, Maik Justus wrote:
>
>> Maybe it is easier, that the clients run their own f
Maik Justus wrote:
> Does anyone know, which latency between control input and visible
> reaction is acceptable (== unnoticeable)?
I'm unable to cite a qualified source from the top of my head. Yet I
remember different people talking and/or writing about not to exceed a
delay of approx. 50 ms. A
On Sunday 13 May 2007 15:05, Maik Justus wrote:
> Maybe it is easier, that the clients run their own fdm and the
> combat-server makes a test of the actual performance of the client
> against stored values, which could be generated by a script (maximum
> acceleration, turn rate, speed for several s
Hi,
James Palmer schrieb am 13.05.2007 03:14:
> Harald,
>
> You are correct, solution #1 does require the server to run all of the
> FDM for all players in multiplayer mode.
Does anyone know, which latency between control input and visible
reaction is acceptable (== unnoticeable)? The worst case
On Sunday 13 May 2007 13:52, Martin Spott wrote:
> "Norman Vine" wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > >
> > > http://www.howardzzh.com/research/terrain
>
> Hey, apparently these guys had quite some fun :-)
> The results are impressi
On Sunday 13 May 2007 13:18, Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
> If the server does the fdm 100 times per second and send the data 10
> times per second it's like if the client was running the fdm at 10 hz.
> That's why I said it's not needed to run the fdm at more than 10 hz
> (those numbers are just examples
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
>
> That was in the situation where the MP server does the fdm computation
> for the client. The 10 hz comes from a ping of 100 ms between the client
> and the server.
I think FDM caculations have to be at a certain rate, ind
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Curtis Olson wrote:
>
> Would you be willing to hack/fixup/modify the original script so that it
> produces "correct" results directly? The issue is that it combines files
> with the same cvs log message and commit date, but sometimes a commit span
Reminds me of Terragen- they use the same heightmap
and he renderig looks the same!
--- Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> "Norman Vine" wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>
> > > http://www.howardzzh.com/research/terra
Reminds me of Terragen- they use the same heightmap
and he renderig looks the same!
--- Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> "Norman Vine" wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>
> > > http://www.howardzzh.com/research/terra
Vivian Meazza wrote:
>Harald
>
>
>
>>Sent: 13 May 2007 18:19
>>To: FlightGear developers discussions
>>Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
>>
>>
>>Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>If the server does the fdm 100 times per second and send the data 10
>
"Norman Vine" wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > http://www.howardzzh.com/research/terrain
Hey, apparently these guys had quite some fun :-)
The results are impressive !
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just sel
Harald
> Sent: 13 May 2007 18:19
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
>
>
> Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
>
> >On Sunday 13 May 2007 03:52, Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Now if the server is doing the
> >>FDM computation it's obv
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
>On Sunday 13 May 2007 03:52, Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
>
>
>>Now if the server is doing the
>>FDM computation it's obvious that there is no need to do that 120 times
>>per second because the data can not be send at that rate.
>>How many loops does the mp server need to do
Hi,
1) Attached is a diff file made from $FGROOT/Aircraft/A-10
2) The new files and a modified overall model are available
here (tared $FGROOT/Aircraft/A-10) :
http://croo.murgl.org/fgfs/A-10/A-10-new_modified-files-20070513.tgz
Description:
Added animated stick and rudder, more properties
Hello Gerard,
> The Computer which run FG is:
>
> With LInux fedora core 5
ok, I have fedora core 6
>
> Cpu AMD Athlon XP3200 (32 bit)
> Memory 3 GB DDR dual channel 3200
CPU AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (no dual core)
Memory 2 GB ECC DDR dual channel 3200
>
> GPU NVIDIA 7800GS 500MZ Memory 512 Mo DD
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Martin Spott wrote:
> Personally I think some thing like distributed shared memory might fill
> the gap. I've been doing some literature research on this topic several
> years ago, the idea looks pretty promising and different OpenSource
> implement
Martin Spott schreef:
> Well, we've been driving two 'external' displays on last years LinuxTag
> exhibition using the 'generic' protocol. We were surprised to encounter
> a significant performance hit on the master machine serving two clients
> at 20 Hz. Throttling the thing down to 10 Hz made the
On Sunday 13 May 2007 03:52, Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
> Now if the server is doing the
> FDM computation it's obvious that there is no need to do that 120 times
> per second because the data can not be send at that rate.
> How many loops does the mp server need to do per second ? 10 ? 20 ? At
> that f
Hi all!
Im currently working on a 3D-Cockpit for the Antonov AN-225;
if someone else does, please tell me for not having two people work on
the same thing!
I havent found much information about the AN-225 (or the 124),
except photos, so please let me know, when you have some knowledge
about this a
On Sun 13 May 2007 17:41, Matthias Boerner wrote:
> Hello Gerard,
>
> > Hello Mathias,
> >
> > Your "10-20 frames more", seems to me very poor regarding the
> > comparison, i get from 10 to 15 fps with the recent one and a now
> > with that old one i recover from 60 to 85, which is a huge
> > diffe
Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
> One should not forget that FG has allready some networking capacity.
> This alone has allready allowed ppl to split fdm and rendering on
> several machines. Perhaps there is something to reuse here.
Well, we've been driving two 'external' displays on last years LinuxTag
Harald JOHNSEN schreef:
> Martin Spott wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Jim Campbell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Some discussions have already taken place on JSBsim devel mailing list
>>> regards communication between "modules" of flightgear.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Indeed, the idea of cutting F
Martin Spott wrote:
>John Wojnaroski wrote:
>
>
>>Martin Spott wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>Sorry, John, this has nothing to do with "selective morality" - as you
>>>allege. After reading these lines I'd say you have severe difficulties
>>>telling the difference between flying and shooting/killin
Hello Gerard,
> Hello Mathias,
>
> Your "10-20 frames more", seems to me very poor regarding the
> comparison, i get from 10 to 15 fps with the recent one and a now
> with that old one i recover from 60 to 85, which is a huge
> difference.
I get an performance increase from about 80/90 fps to 100
Martin Spott wrote:
>Hi Jim,
>
>Jim Campbell wrote:
>
>
>
>>Some discussions have already taken place on JSBsim devel mailing list
>>regards communication between "modules" of flightgear.
>>
>>
>
>Indeed, the idea of cutting FlightGear into modules is not a new one
>and has been floating ar
Hi Jim,
Jim Campbell wrote:
> Some discussions have already taken place on JSBsim devel mailing list
> regards communication between "modules" of flightgear.
Indeed, the idea of cutting FlightGear into modules is not a new one
and has been floating around way before this nice "new arcitecture"
Hi,
Some discussions have already taken place on JSBsim devel mailing list
regards communication between "modules" of flightgear.
My thoughts are that flightgear divides "naturally" into four major
sub-system modules:
a) FDM (jsbsim is already "standalone")
b) cockpit input and output (ie joystic
> I think that was investigated a few months ago. JSBSim FDM took only a
> couple percent of the CPU, or course depending on your hardware
> and what you were drawing.
>
> BIll
I didn't see that one. In any case, I just made a 200 second scripted test
run, which took 42 seconds on my 2 GHz clunker
On Sat 12 May 2007 23:01, Matthias Boerner wrote:
> Hallo Georg,
>
> I have done a "fresh" checkout of OSG, PLIB, SimGear and FlightGear
> today at 3 pm in the afternoon. Everything compiled without a problem.
> But I don't realize a drop in frame rates. But in contrast to my last
> checkout of 24t
On Sunday 13 May 2007 10:16:43 Georg Vollnhals wrote:
Hi Georg,
> Hi Matthias and Nick,
>
> I only can confirm this.
> After Matthias' post I did a complete new compile cycle last night(OSG,
> SimGear, FlightGear) and had a look on the framerates at 2 wellknown
> places.
>
> Unfortunately the pro
Am Sonntag, den 13.05.2007, 07:02 + schrieb Martin Spott:
> John Wojnaroski wrote:
> > Martin Spott wrote:
>
> > >Sorry, John, this has nothing to do with "selective morality" - as you
> > >allege. After reading these lines I'd say you have severe difficulties
> > >telling the difference betwe
On Saturday 12 May 2007 22:01:42 Matthias Boerner wrote:
> Hallo Georg,
>
> I have done a "fresh" checkout of OSG, PLIB, SimGear and FlightGear
> today at 3 pm in the afternoon. Everything compiled without a problem.
> But I don't realize a drop in frame rates. But in contrast to my last
> checkout
Hi,
This morning's update of fg-cvs fails to compile under MSVC8 with the
following error:
error C2491: 'terminate' : definition of dllimport function not allowed
Flightgear-cvs\source\src\Main\bootstrap.cxx147
The attached patch fixes it (but it may not be the best way of doing it).
Vivia
Bill Galbraith wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>Behalf Of Stefan Seifert
>>Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 10:38 PM
>>To: FlightGear developers discussions
>>Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
>>
>>-
John Wojnaroski wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:
> >Sorry, John, this has nothing to do with "selective morality" - as you
> >allege. After reading these lines I'd say you have severe difficulties
> >telling the difference between flying and shooting/killing.
> >
> Ooo, I don't think so.
>
>
43 matches
Mail list logo
